Vinay Kumar Nivetia is claimed to have been associated with one of India’s biggest financial trading stunts. He was caught in Walk and is now banned from trading. Ketan Parekh was claimed to have an indirect exchange: A scheme fake exchange in which buy/sell orders are entered by an individual or by people acting intrigued with each other to work the cost of basic security into a common advantage.
Unlike Harshad Mehta, Ketan Parekh not only used public money, but the advertisers of these organizations gave him funds to increase the cost of the shares of his organization. Similarly, Ketan Parekh used his contacts at Worldwide Trust Bank and Madhavpura Trade Co-usable Bank to obtain assets for market control.
Their usual way of doing things: Rotating trades with advertiser reserves (advertisers from organizations whose share costs were generally low) eventually ditching the shares once the larger market recovers and the value of the shares rises.
B Ramalinga Raju, the author of Satyam PCs controlled corporate records for a few million rupees for quite some time. He cooked up the organization’s book by exaggerating its revenue, profit, and overall income for every quarter.
The following press published by Satyam at a later stage, for example on January 7, 2002, summarizes the story:
Against an actual labor benefit of just Rs. 62 Cr. This has sparked fake money, and bank adjustments have increased by Rs. 582 Cr. Only in the second trimester. “
The aim was to show a reddish image of the organization to speculators, workers, and experts and try to persuade them that the organization was a much larger endeavor than it really could have been. To achieve this, accountants created bogus requests to register agreements that did not exist.
On February 26, 2014, the High Court of India requested the arrest of Subrata Roy, the originator of Sahara India Pariwar, for his recurring inability to discount more than Rs. 20,023 Cr. Plus premium @ 15% to its large number of small speculators. Ultimately, he was caught on February 28, 2014, by Uttar Pradesh police with a warrant from the High Court, in a question with the market controller, SEBI.
This case deals with fully convertible discretionary bonds (OFCD) that Sahara Gathering’s two unlisted organizations, Sahara India Land and Sahara India Lodging Speculation, gave during 2008-2011, raising more than Rs. 24,000 Cr. From 30 million speculators. A convertible bond qualifies the holder to become an investor in the organization at a later stage, should they so choose.
In 2011, SEBI asked Sahara to discount this sum with income from financial specialists, since the issue was not in line with the material needed for public contributions of protections. The organization gave convertible debentures and secured Rs. 24,000 Cr. From retail speculators. Although the facts confirm that there was no bank guarantee or resources to back up this cash, none of the people who contributed this sum presented questions. SEBI itself documented a case in light of legitimate speculators’ concern. Why precisely the speculators were not discouraged, but then SEBI needed to assure them?
The speculators did not complain essentially because they were getting the guaranteed return from their companies. Truth be told, to date, some strong investors are happy to put resources into Sahara plans that offer an annual return of more than 10% or up to half of the income in four years, or an income of value in the organization, whatever they choose towards the end of the period.
So why did SEBI go down? The money raised is not contributed anywhere. There are no resources to support the stores. The agrarian organizations from which the offers will be delivered (in case of bond exchange) have no resources. This makes the whole problem something of a Ponzi conspiracy in the sense that as the organization continues to collect more cash, it can continue to revise past revenue quotas (and lead) in development. What is the end of this? If Sahara knows of a method to obtain an income rate above 10%, at that time this insurance is a triumphant plan of action, as it can provide a 10% return for investors and balance for itself. . In such a case this may not be a Ponzi plot, however, any such action plan should be revealed to speculators and that is what SEBI exists for. Legitimately and according to SEBI, the stores rose from more than 50 speculators, which made this a public problem within the SEBI review. Truth be told, the stores were taken from 30 million retail speculators, but SEBI’s equity exposure/issuance rules were not followed.